Our Approach Towards Knowledge As A Group Is Invalid

[Kriminal99]

Our means for evaluating knowledge have criteria that are subjective and dependent on the intelligence and analytical ability of the reader. A person's ability to follow, much less scrutinize, logical arguments from referenced facts or ideas depends heavily on the reader's abilities.

 

Despite some degree of intelligence testing used to screen potential graduate students, there persists a wide range of intelligence and analytical skills among potential scrutineers of an academic paper independent of their status in the social structure.

 

When this is the case there are different interpretations of the same arguments as to whether they are factually supported, "properly referenced" etc. In my opinion many people who are on the lower end of the intelligence and analytical skills scale do not try to objectively evaluate the paper at all because many papers seem "poorly supported" to their limited abilities - instead they just look at the paper's standing in the social structure and use that as a gauge. Novel ideas present a problem to them as the social status is as yet undetermined, yet they are pressured to make a determination - causing them to favor rejection of the new idea as the most likely socially acceptable choice. Such behavior from multiple people creates a pressure to avoid novel ideas altogether, and favor minor revisions to established work.

 

Thus what superficially appears to be simple requirements of research papers instead act to prevent the acceptance of any arguments not understood or favored by the authority structure. I emphasize the understanding aspect instead of the acceptance aspect, because I believe any valid argument that members of the authority structure were truly capable of understanding would be accepted.

 

Others would say that a person is always aware of an implication before they are able to understand the argument, and may choose to stop reading if they don't like the implication. I disagree - if the reasoning is simple enough for them to understand they will follow it until they at least reach a point where they do not quickly understand what is being claimed.

 

But there is no single argument can be easily understood by all members of any group. An argument elaborate enough to allow a person of lower ability to follow the reasoning step by step would appear needlessly long to a person of higher abilities whose attention would quickly waiver.

[HydrogenBond]

Although what the teacher is doing may appear to question your ability, she is nevertheless preparing you for the needs of the real world. If she lets you be creative, in your own way, when you enter the real world of science, you will not be prepared for this treatment (squared).

[jakuta]

Our approach towards academics has many inherent fallacies and failed assumptions.

 

 

When I was in high school, teachers were adamant you weren't allowed to write papers that had any ideas that weren't references to things other people said. Even worse, if you did it could be assumed that whatever you wrote was plagiarized because of course it was of course it was impossible for you to deduce anything important that the reference sources didn't.

 

There was of course room for minor inferences or paraphrasing of information. But the precise amount of such leeway allowed determined solely on the intelligence and knowledge of the reader.

 

Needless to say that my 95 iq high school teacher frequently complained about the lack of reference for what I (a 140 iq student with extreme analytical skills) saw as obvious inferences from referenced facts. The teacher would even imply that I was stupid because I didn't listen when she had said about "unreferenced claims". This is the same crap I put up with in academia as a graduate student - professors trying to criticize my claims due to a lack of intelligence or reasoning ability on their part.

 

The principles our approach to knowledge as a group are based on the invalid assumption that everyone has equal intelligence. If it wasn't for this ignorant attitude I could have advanced my field to untold heights years ago.

 

Disagree. The group leaders define the progress of intelligence.

 

If you do not conform, then you are stupid and may require banishment.

 

The system is not set up for progress.

 

It seems to be very corporate.

[Kriminal99]

Although what the teacher is doing may appear to question your ability, she is nevertheless preparing you for the needs of the real world. If she lets you be creative, in your own way, when you enter the real world of science, you will not be prepared for this treatment (squared).

 

I am not sure what you are talking about tbh. The thread is about how it is invalid to assume an equal level of intelligence for all readers of a paper. If there was an equal level of intelligence for all readers, then it would make sense to poorly define the amount of inference allowed from published sources, and equate going above that level of inference to "original research".

 

Or to allow people to judge whether a paper made unsupported claims based on their status in a social structure instead of their level of intelligence and ability to follow logical arguments.

 

What society needs is to sterilize everyone with an iq lower than 130...

 

Disagree. The group leaders define the progress of intelligence.

 

If you do not conform, then you are stupid and may require banishment.

 

The system is not set up for progress.

 

It seems to be very corporate.

 

What are you referring to by "progress of intelligence"? Intelligence is a well defined, well measured, well understood scientific phenomenon that has to do with how quickly your brain can process things and whether or not it can do so before losing focus or access to information. There is no room for a bandwagon definition of intelligence.

 

Why would I conform to people far less intelligent than I am? That makes no sense. Intelligence is a limited resource that should be used to full capacity.

 

While your description may be partially accurate regarding how things currently operate, it is important to separate the current (mis-) conceptions of intelligence in academia from reality.

 

Only then can we tell what is going on and plan how to fix it. Of course this is already happening given how the university system in America is failing and losing funding.

[Turtle]

...

What society needs is to sterilize everyone with an iq lower than 130...

...

 

yeah; that's the ticket. why hasn't someone thought of that before? oh that's right, it's 'cause you are smarter than anyone else. don't i feel stupid now. :doh:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

...As a social movement, eugenics reached its height of popularity in the early decades of the 20th century. By the end of World War II eugenics had been largely abandoned.[3] Although current trends in genetics have raised questions amongst critical academics concerning parallels between pre-war attitudes about eugenics and current "utilitarian" and social theories allegedly related to Darwinism,[4] they are, in fact, only superficially related and somewhat contradictory to one another.[5] At its pre-war height, the movement often pursued pseudoscientific notions of racial supremacy and purity.[6]

 

Eugenics was practiced around the world and was promoted by governments, and influential individuals and institutions. Its advocates regarded it as a social philosophy for the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of certain people and traits, and the reduction of reproduction of other people and traits.[7]

 

Today it is widely regarded as a brutal movement which inflicted massive human rights violations on millions of people.[8] The "interventions" advocated and practiced by eugenicists involved prominently the identification and classification of individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, promiscuous women, homosexuals and entire racial groups -- such as the Roma and Jews -- as "degenerate" or "unfit"; the segregation or institutionalisation of such individuals and groups, their sterilization, euthanasia, and in the extreme case of Nazi Germany, their mass extermination.[9]

 

The practices engaged in by eugenicists involving violations of privacy, attacks on reputation, violations of the right to life, to found a family, to freedom from discrimination are all today classified as violations of human rights. The practice of negative racial aspects of eugenics, after World War II, fell within the definition of the new international crime of genocide, set out in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.[10]...

 

moreover, there is no clearcut line for "high iq" parents having ultimately "high iq" children.

 

http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Literacy/intelligence.asp

 

IS INTELLIGENCE INHERITED CONTOVERSY

Abstract

It is as futile to ask how much of the phenotype of an organism is due to nature and how much to its nurture as it is to determine how much of the area of a rectangle is due to its length and how much to its height. Phenotype and area are joint products. The spectacular success of genomics, unfortunately, threatens to re-awaken belief in genes as the principal determinants of human behavior. This paper develops the thesis that gene expression is modified by environmental inputs and that the impact of the environment on a given organism is modified by its genome. Genes set the boundaries of the possible; environments parse out the actual.

...

The aim of this paper is to reiterate the central principle of evolutionary genetics: just as the unique response of the organism to its environment depends on its genome, the expression of that genome is conditioned by that environment.

[CraigD]

Some IQ basics, and some fun and silly math

The principles our approach to knowledge as a group are based on the invalid assumption that everyone has equal intelligence.

This assertion is contra-factual, and suggests a misunderstanding of the history and present-day application of intelligence testing.

 

Historically, standardized intelligence testing was developed ca. 1905 by departments of national governments in order to identify mentally deficient children so that they could be placed in special education programs. Ca. 1916 it was adapted for testing of adult military recruits to determine if they were eligible for induction, and for what roles they would be trained. By the mid 20th century, intelligence testing was widely used in the public schools of many nations to place students in multiple academic tracks based on their expected intellectual ability. For example, the last year I attended public school in WV, USA, 1975, our grades 7-9 classes were divided into 6 “tracks”, A1, A2, B1, B2, B3, and B4, based on scores in a state-wide test called the “West Virginia Basic”, administered in the 6th grade.

 

Although I’m unable to find much history beyond the first few decades of the use of SIT by schools and other training organizations, I’ve personal knowledge of its use in MD schools, and by national programs such as the US’s National Merit Scholarship Program, which uses the CEEB’s PSAT and SAT tests.

 

Although there’s a pedagogical school of though (I don’t know a specific recognized term for it, so let’s call it a generalization of the concept of mainstreaming) that holds that strict segregation of students by tested intelligence is a sub-optimal approach, both for low and high-testing students, I don’t find credible the claim that US public schools (nor, I suspect, those of most other states and nations) base their approaches to education on the assumption that everyone has equal intelligence.

 

What society needs is to sterilize everyone with an iq lower than 130...

Overlooking for a moment that you’re proposing to sterilize about 97% of the human race, Krim (assuming the usual SB mean of 100 and SD of 16, so 130 maps to z=30/16, p(Z<z)=~.9696), there’re appears to me to be a arithmetical absurdity to killing or sterilizing a large fraction of any population based on mean and variance-based scores, (which the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, what’s usually assumed by the term “IQ”) are). It’s purely a mathematical curiosity, I think, as the likelihood of a program of mandatory sterilization of 97% of humankind seems to me nearly zero (ie: it’s politically difficult to get people to fight for the privilege of being sterilized), but I find the number play fun:

 

After eliminating the reproductive ability of 97% of the population, the remaining 3% and the IQ calculation will by definition need to be adjusted so that again only about 3% of the population has an IQ above 130, requiring the elimination of 97% of the population again, ad infinitum. Assuming a 50/50 gender split and a likelihood of any non-sterilized woman between the age of 15 and 45 having a child to be 13%, outside of that range to be 0% (corresponding to a TFR of about 4), (unrealistically and for simplicity) the current world population is 6 billion, evenly distributed from ages 0 to 79, that everyone dies on their 80th birthday, and that IQ is measured and mandatory sterilization occurs on everyone’s 15th birthday (people over 15 , here’s what happens to the world population: year 2010, population 6 billion; 2020 6.5 billion; 2050 5.4 billion; 2100 1.2 billion; 2120 138 million; 2209 102 thousand (first year than no 15 year old has IQ over 130); 2229 18 thousand (first year no births); 2308 0 (humankind extinct).

 

To select only 3% of the (female – male population doesn’t much matter in such calculations) population for breeding and not have eventual extinction, the TFR must be higher than [imath]\frac{0.5}{0.03} \dot= 66[/imath] if equal numbers of each gender are born, only about half that if only a few males are born. This calls on all women to have 34 female children in their lifetime, something beyond the realm of the possible for present-day human reproduction, and not much fun anyway I can imagine it!

[Qfwfq]

When I was in high school, we were told that, if we said things not supportable by the books, it was up to ourselves to defend it. :shrug:

 

I am not sure what you are talking about tbh.

By replying thus to the quite clear point of HB, you are not demonstrating an IQ of 140 at all.

 

Do you really presume that having a higher IQ implies some privilege in society? Not currently, it would be a political choice that you would have to acheive against plenty of contrary interests. Study a bit of history, it just ain't the way the world works.

 

If you are more intelligent than others, it is up to you to use your higher capacity to fare better; guess what, it isn't easy. Know why it isn't? It is less easy for them to understand your point than for you to see the fallacy of theirs, and this is due to the difference. And why should they care, anyway, when they have just as much interest in faring better themselves? What you need to get ready for are the folks who are shrewd and unscrupulous. You have more chance by approaching those who are at least as intelligent as yourself but have no interest in getting ahead of you, nor afraid of vice versa.

 

What society needs is to sterilize everyone with an iq lower than 130...

Who would clean the toilets?

[Kriminal99]

yeah; that's the ticket. why hasn't someone thought of that before? oh that's right, it's 'cause you are smarter than anyone else. don't i feel stupid now. :doh:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

 

 

moreover, there is no clearcut line for "high iq" parents having ultimately "high iq" children.

 

http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Literacy/intelligence.asp

 

Your latter reference points to a glorified blog of members of a professional, not a research, organization. However I agree that despite huge measured values for heritability of IQ, there is still no clear cut understanding of how, why or when. We would still be much better off with a diverse population of 130 iq people (allowing protection of some racial groups of course) than waiting for 2 75 IQ parents to produce the next Einstein or Shakespeare.

 

A more conscientious eugenics is inevitable. The population is growing at an exponential rate (it took what 10 years to make our last billion?) and hitting the ceiling naturally results in widespread poverty, famine, war, and just general chaos. We are already experiencing much worse effects that what we would be if we had some way of scaling our population growth with our existing capital. A "human right" that kills other people is quickly going to lose it's status as a human right.

 

Once we have dispelled the notion that the government does not have the right to dictate such things, a mild more objective and humane eugenics will see a resurgence. If you have a choice between an 85% chance of creating someone who will have little difficulty in processing the world around them, learning from mistakes, etc and a person who struggles to understand basic survival skills, It is clear what the more humane and moral thing to do is.

 

I have known and loved people with lower IQ's. Long enough to know that they have real limitations that hamper everything they try to do and make them miserable as they constantly find themselves unable to understand societal norms. (This is in contrast to people of extreme intelligence who "exceed" societal norms meaning they can conform to them when it suits them)

[Kriminal99]

Some IQ basics, and some fun and silly math

 

This assertion is contra-factual, and suggests a misunderstanding of the history and present-day application of intelligence testing.

 

Historically, standardized intelligence testing was developed ca. 1905 by departments of national governments in order to identify mentally deficient children so that they could be placed in special education programs. Ca. 1916 it was adapted for testing of adult military recruits to determine if they were eligible for induction, and for what roles they would be trained. By the mid 20th century, intelligence testing was widely used in the public schools of many nations to place students in multiple academic tracks based on their expected intellectual ability. For example, the last year I attended public school in WV, USA, 1975, our grades 7-9 classes were divided into 6 “tracks”, A1, A2, B1, B2, B3, and B4, based on scores in a state-wide test called the “West Virginia Basic”, administered in the 6th grade.

 

Although I’m unable to find much history beyond the first few decades of the use of SIT by schools and other training organizations, I’ve personal knowledge of its use in MD schools, and by national programs such as the US’s National Merit Scholarship Program, which uses the CEEB’s PSAT and SAT tests.

 

Although there’s a pedagogical school of though (I don’t know a specific recognized term for it, so let’s call it a generalization of the concept of mainstreaming) that holds that strict segregation of students by tested intelligence is a sub-optimal approach, both for low and high-testing students, I don’t find credible the claim that US public schools (nor, I suspect, those of most other states and nations) base their approaches to education on the assumption that everyone has equal intelligence.

 

 

Overlooking for a moment that you’re proposing to sterilize about 97% of the human race, Krim (assuming the usual SB mean of 100 and SD of 16, so 130 maps to z=30/16, p(Z<z)=~.9696), there’re appears to me to be a arithmetical absurdity to killing or sterilizing a large fraction of any population based on mean and variance-based scores, (which the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, what’s usually assumed by the term “IQ”) are). It’s purely a mathematical curiosity, I think, as the likelihood of a program of mandatory sterilization of 97% of humankind seems to me nearly zero (ie: it’s politically difficult to get people to fight for the privilege of being sterilized), but I find the number play fun:

 

After eliminating the reproductive ability of 97% of the population, the remaining 3% and the IQ calculation will by definition need to be adjusted so that again only about 3% of the population has an IQ above 130, requiring the elimination of 97% of the population again, ad infinitum. Assuming a 50/50 gender split and a likelihood of any non-sterilized woman between the age of 15 and 45 having a child to be 13%, outside of that range to be 0% (corresponding to a TFR of about 4), (unrealistically and for simplicity) the current world population is 6 billion, evenly distributed from ages 0 to 79, that everyone dies on their 80th birthday, and that IQ is measured and mandatory sterilization occurs on everyone’s 15th birthday (people over 15 , here’s what happens to the world population: year 2010, population 6 billion; 2020 6.5 billion; 2050 5.4 billion; 2100 1.2 billion; 2120 138 million; 2209 102 thousand (first year than no 15 year old has IQ over 130); 2229 18 thousand (first year no births); 2308 0 (humankind extinct).

 

To select only 3% of the (female – male population doesn’t much matter in such calculations) population for breeding and not have eventual extinction, the TFR must be higher than [imath]\frac{0.5}{0.03} \dot= 66[/imath] if equal numbers of each gender are born, only about half that if only a few males are born. This calls on all women to have 34 female children in their lifetime, something beyond the realm of the possible for present-day human reproduction, and not much fun anyway I can imagine it!

 

The fact that we use IQ tests to get some gauge of student's abilities (and I imagine some departments pay less attention to this practice than they should be) does not contradict or even address my claim.

 

Our means for evaluating academic research have criteria that are subjective and dependent on the intelligence and reasoning ability of the reader. The only other thing that is required for my claim to be true is that there be a range of intelligence and analytical skills among potential readers.

 

When this is the case there are different interpretations of the same arguments as to whether they are factually supported, "properly referenced" etc. In my opinion many people who are on the lower end of the intelligence and analytical skills scale don't try to objectively evaluate the paper at all because all the papers seem "poorly supported" to their limited abilities - instead they just look at the paper's standing in the social structure and use that as a gauge.

 

Thus what superficially appears to be simple requirements of research papers are actually a smokescreen to prevent the acceptance of any arguments not understood or favored by the authority structure. I emphasize the understanding aspect instead of the acceptance aspect, because I believe any valid argument that members of the authority structure were truly capable of understanding would be accepted.

 

Many other people complain about how journals screen non-mainstream ideas, but that raises the question of how they are capable of doing it. One way is to call perfectly supported claims unsupported simply because they cannot or will not make the connection.